MUMBAI, India--Coordinated terrorist attacks struck the heart of Mumbai, India's commercial capital, on Wednesday night, killing dozens in machine-gun and grenade assaults on at least two five-star hotels, the city's largest train station, a Jewish center, a movie theater and a hospital...

The Mumbai police said Thursday that the attacks killed at least 101 people and wounded at least 250. Guests who had escaped the hotels told television stations that the attackers were taking hostages, singling out Americans and Britons...

Fire also raged inside the luxurious Oberoi Hotel, according to the police. A militant hidden in the Oberoi told India TV on Thursday morning that seven attackers were holding hostages there.

"We want all mujahedeen held in India released, and only after that we will release the people," he said. Some guests, including two members of the European Parliament who were visiting as part of a trade delegation, remained in hiding in the hotels, making desperate cellphone calls, some of them to television stations, describing their ordeal...

A group calling itself the Deccan Mujahedeen said it had carried out the attacks. It was not known who the group is or whether the claim was real ...

Thank you, Mohandas Gandhi, for using your fabulous moral suasion, backed up by a personal hunger strike, to prevent the Indians from expelling the Muslims at the time of the Partition of India and Pakistan (even as the Muslims were expelling millions of Hindus from Pakistan), leaving a vast Muslim minority in India, now 150 million strong, forever carrying out jihad. Thank you, Nehru, thank you, Congress Party, and thank you, liberalism, which in the name of universal human sameness refused then and refuse now to recognize the nature of the eternal warrior religion of Islam, and thus leave civilized humanity helpless and vulnerable before it.

The only solution, the only way to save the world from Islam, is Separation, the permanent exclusion of Muslims from all non-Muslim countries and the containment of Muslims inside their own lands. In India, tragically, that is not possible, at least in the short term, because of the sheer size of the Muslim population that lives there thanks to the great liberal saint Gandhi. In India, the main method of preventing Muslim terrorism is the threat of mass reprisals by the Hindu majority, as explained here and here. But if such deterrence ceases to be effective, as is evident in this unprecedented Muslim attack, what is to be done?

----------------

(Note, see my views on separation below).

This gallery is brought to you by Gandhi, Nehru, and subsequent perpetuators of liberalism.** warning: graphic **

Note: I agree that separation is the only solution. I'm in favour of separating Muslims and non-Muslims. But I think it's too late to talk in terms of excluding Muslims from non-Muslim countries. So that leaves some form of internal separation. How to do that democratically? I don't know, maybe a new federalism with ethnically homogeneous states.

... it's not a one-shot deal--instantly expelling all Muslims. To put it in those terms is to kill it in people's minds, just as making the removal of illegal aliens appear to be a matter of instantly deporting them all has the effect of killing the idea of doing anything about illegals, other than legalizing them. It would not involve, at least in the early and medium stages, expelling law-abiding Muslims with no connections to sharia and jihad. I have proposed a range of measures, starting with (1) expelling the most objectionable and most excludible Muslims, (2) placing legal restrictions on the religion of Islam, such as, at a minimum, closing pro-jihad, pro-sharia mosques, and (3) offering to pay Muslims to return permanently to their home countries. These steps would make Muslims feel unwelcome here, leading many of them to start to depart voluntarily, a process helped along by the offer of payment. The minimal, and perhaps the sufficient, goal of the policy is not to have literally zero Muslims in America, but to reverse our present course, so that the presence and power of Islam in America, rather than steadily increasing, as is now the case, is steadily decreasing.

As far as legal measures to restrict Islam are concerned, my own preference, which I recognize goes too far even for many people who support Separationism, is for a constitutional amendment banning the practice of Islam in the United States.

... Australia's former World War I European allies have been commemorating Remembrance Day for decades, but our nation's preoccupation with Gallipoli has overshadowed realities of the Western Front to such an extent that it hardly appeared on the historic radar.

... One soldier wounded at Fromelles told me he was forced to say he was shot at Gallipoli as nobody knew of Fromelles, Australia's worst one-day killing field that claimed nearly 2000 lives.

The Western Front was fives times greater than Gallipoli because five times as many Australians served there - 250,000 not just 50,000; more than five times more died there - 46,000 not 8709; they fought more than five times as many battles - 40 battles not eight; they won more than five times more Victoria Crosses - 52 not nine and fought there for 2½ years, not eight months. More importantly, (unlike Gallipoli) by 1918 they fought as Australians under Australian command, with all five divisions led by General Sir John Monash. Most significantly, what happened was not a defeat like Gallipoli because this all-volunteer army of World War I helped win the war. As Monash reported, the AIF only constituted 10% of Allied forces but won 25% of enemy territory, prisoners of war, arms and ammunition...

I interviewed Peter Casserly, 107, our last WWI Western Front man along with the last 50 diggers who begged us to stop glorifying Gallipoli and focus instead on their victory on the Western Front. They wanted to be remembered as winners, not losers...

What did you learn from the diaries of Australian soldiers who served on the Western Front in World War I?

How traumatised most of the soldiers were having to fight in the battles on the Western Front. They revealed their secret fears in their diaries … these men who were just bank clerks, insurance salesmen, blacksmiths, carpenters or farm hands rose to the occasion, overcoming fear to become brave and skilled warriors all Australians should be proud of ...

In a special Remembrance Day program we hear Jonathan King, historian who has recently released the book The Western Front Diaries. It is an eyewitness account of the diggers in the trenches of World War 1.

Q: You look at the young of today, will they have the same spirit as those incredibly brave young men?

JK: No, nothing like it. For example, everybody in 1918 was basically British, or Anglophiles, but predominantly British. They were either born in Britain or their parents were born in Britain. Today, Australia is a totally different country, and so we can't imagine that there would be the same commitment, there wouldn't be so many volunteers, and nor would they identify with Britain ... I don't think it could ever happen again.

If consistency was a virtue (TM), that might have been a headline by Daniel Lane at the Sydney Morning Herald. Instead, his 2006 article was titled: Anger as Aborigines, Maori shut out of cup. Back then, retired Aboriginal footballer Arthur Beetson called for indigenous teams to compete in the 2008 Rugby League World Cup. As it turned out, they were not included but did play an invitational warm-up match before the opening game, including a very spirited pre-game "haka off" (warning: contains half-naked crazy man):

"As the host nation, Australia can allow the Maori and Aborigines to enter a team in the World Cup but they don't want to," Beetson said.

"You just hit brick walls with the ARL. It's because of this type of thinking that rugby league has gone nowhere in 100 years.

"We could pick a team that would give the World Cup a real shake, and that's without the Aborigines who could be picked for the Australian team. Is the ARL worried we might beat them?" ...

"It would be appropriate in that the two indigenous people of the host nations who have contributed so much to the game can be recognised at the World Cup."

Sounds good. I'm all for it, although the distinction between a World Cup and Indigenous Cup would take some clarifying. But, alas, there is no mention of the value of a white Australian team "who have contributed so much" more to the game and who have no team representing them (the current Australian team is racially mixed and turning browner by the day).

In the aftermath to this game, there were again calls to allow indigenous teams into future world cups. But, now they also suggest allowing Aboriginals to decide whether they want to play for the Dreamtime team or the Australian team. Andrew Stevenson writes Give Kangaroos last pick of the cultural melting pot:

Bring back the Maori and you might bring back some effervescence to some otherwise very flat beer. And, another guaranteed way to raise a froth is choose all the Kooris, Gooris or Murris, for the Indigenous Dreamtime team. Imagine how well they'd go with Johnathan Thurston, Greg Inglis and Scott Prince helping to direct proceedings.

"I think they should get the best of the best Aboriginals and the best of the best of the rest of the country and let's see how they go. I think they would surprise a lot of people," said Anthony Mundine, making a lot more sense than usual. "I think that would give our youth something to strive for and something to dream about."

The Kangaroos will still probably win but, with half a dozen competitive teams and some epic mate-versus-mate confrontations, international rugby league could live again.

Indigenous teams would somehow add effervescence and froth. How so? Yes, by adding competitiveness, but he is also hinting at the added spice of a racial contest. But, either way, the addition of a white Australian team would also add both because the current Australian team is one-third non-white. So was a white Australian team suggested? No. Alas, the white side of the brain does not work for today's journalists. The closest suggestion to a white Australian team is described as "the last pick of the culural melting pot": we only exist in the defacto negative as the undefined leftovers (still unable to positively discriminate with pride and identity).

And if it's good for indigenous youth to strive for and dream about playing for their race, then why not white Australian youth also? The silence is deafening ...

With a number of players likely to be first choice selections in both sides, Mundine said the decision should be left to the individuals but predicted most Aboriginals would want to play for the Dreamtime team.

Supporting his view is the actions of Kangaroos stars Greg Inglis and Scott Prince ...

"To get out there and represent the Indigenous people is a very proud moment," said South Sydney-bound fullback Rhys Wesser, who scored two tries.

"It was great to take the game back to the grass roots and you saw all the people who came out today to celebrate this moment so I think that it would be good to have it every year. We're very proud of our culture and if we could have this game once a year it would give us something to celebrate."

Soward added: "I'd love to see us in the World Cup and even the Maoris, we gave a good account of ourselves today and obviously we've got a huge following so it would create more revenue."

Former Manly great Cliff Lyons, who acted as a mentor in camp and was a trainer, backed Soward's call.

"I thought today's game was better than the one last night [between England and Papua New Guinea] so why not," Lyons said. "It was a great contest."

If Mundine predicts most Aboriginals would play for a Dreamtime team, then do you think most whites would want to play for a Colonial team (or whatever you want to call it)? Alas, we only hear the crickets chirping in the journalists' brains. And if it's a "proud" moment to represent the indigenous team, then wouldn't the same be true for whites? Chirp, chirp, chirp ...

Match-winner Jamie Soward ... believes some of Australia’s best players would support the idea and pick the Indigenous team over the Kangaroos ...

“It would be up to them (Aboriginal heritage Test stars) whether they’d want to play for Australia or the Aboriginal team but I’m sure they’d probably take the Aboriginal team.

“It’s been an emotional week for all of us. Talking at the start of the week what it meant to each player was pretty special and something I will never forget.”

While inclusion in a World Cup is highly unlikely, the near 10,000 fans who flocked to the SFS early enough to watch the game would support the prospect of further clashes between the two teams.

It could have also been an emotional week for whites too. Chirp, chirp, chirp, ...

OK, Ireland beating Samoa was cool, but it's not quite the same as supporting a white Australian team.

The arguments for race based teams are partly based on re-establishing a competitive world cup, but also on the unmistakable pride in playing for and supporting one's race. So white Australians have a right to be angry because, unlike other Indigenous groups, we are not permitted to play for our race. Sure, we might struggle for some equivalent to the haka, and we probably won't attack the referee if things don't go our way, but the pride is there all the same. Whites may still dominate the Australian team, but there's not the same pride in the jersey anymore, and it will soon be dominated by non-whites.

And further, if there is so much pride in playing for your race, then it follows that the National Rugby League competition should also permit teams to discriminate by race (as well as allowing teams of mixed race). If all this talk about racial pride is accurate, then that would explain why I get more enjoyment watching the all-white Ireland team playing than I do the mixed-race Australian team. And it would also add more "froth" to the NRL competition.

Until next time from the journalistic Bermuda Triangle ... Chirp, chirp, chirp ...

People don't realise that a lot of our mob call Australia Day 'Invasion Day'. An annual game would be a chance to heal the rifts.

I agree it would help to heal the rifts, but if it's reconciliation you seek then you need to play white Australia. And if Tonga and Samoa can play peacefully, but with passion, despite 1000 years of hatred then I think we can do the same with our 200 year history. Let's get it on.

Police and youth workers said gang warfare was turning parts of Melbourne into no-go zones at night...

Officers said they were frustrated the emerging racial nature of gangs was being denied by government because of political concerns...

One police source said crime related to gangs was at crisis levels.

"The level of violence has become serious," he said.

"These people are going armed with deadly weapons. There are knives and baseball bats involved.

"And these gangs are now organised along racial lines - there are Polynesian gangs, Sudanese, Lebanese, Vietnamese and the rest." ...

Former Police Commissioner Bob Falconer said a new debate was needed on how to tackle rising violent crime linked to gangs...

Mr Falconer said there needed to be recognition of the racial nature of gangs.

"There has obviously been some sort of government edict to shut down debate about this. The police will not talk about it," he said.

"It is indisputable that ethnicity is coming into aspects of crime. Most of these gangs have openly ethnic names - and they are self-labelled...

The silence is because diversity only works under fascistic denial. It's because diversity itself is a core part of the problem, and the only solution is to ditch the dumb idea and go back to 'boring' ethnically homogenous communities. A new debate is exactly what we need: ask all public servants to pile up all material with the word 'diversity' in it, burn all the heretical teachings of the diversity ideologues, round up all the diversity advocates and parade them around town like the thieves of social capital that they are. Make them walk around town with the words 'nation wrecker' hung around their necks chanting "Enoch was right".

"Too often today people are ready to tell us: 'This is not possible, that is not possible.' I say: whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible. We have nothing to fear but our own doubts..."

In 1981, Powell's voice reverberated from the political wilderness with a dour warning of: 'the uncertainty of violence on a scale which can only adequately be described as civil war'.

A debate is long overdue, not doubt hastened by the bashing death of Richard Saunders in Brisbane. But the only solution I can see is one where immigration is recognised as colonisation and some form of separation is the solution. Something that sets limits on the process of colonisation so that each race/religion has their own space and something worth investing their time and energy into preserving. Be that a new federalism, land rights for each group, or whatever. Anything else is just damage control, "heaping up our own funeral pyre" and "mad, literally mad", ending in "the black man will have the whip hand over the white man".

Two American Mormons, Chris Collinsworth and David Ferguson, after spending the day in Auburn, were attacked by a group of Middle Eastern men (also described as Lebanese Muslim in one report) upon returning to their apartments. Collinsworth is a tall successful college basketballer, whom they targeted, and they succeeded in pinning him down and stabbing him. Ferguson tried to help and a passing car intervened. Both victims ended up in hospital. The location is only described as "little Lebanon".

It appears that no Australia media or the NSW Police have reported this story, one week after it happened. Why not? This is a serious unprovoked assault, and they almost succeeded in subduing Collinsworth and who knows what they had planned for him. Less serious assaults than this are regularly reported, so why not this one? Is protecting the image of Middle Easterners/Muslims now the highest function of our Police and media? Is it too much for the public to hear about a crime by Middle Easterners/Muslims that has no apparent motive other than the hatred of whites/Christians/Americans? Please explain.

October 20, 2008, Lawrence Auster on the subject of re-invigorating French identity by restoring the French language, history, culture, etc, to prominence among the native French people:

To paraphase Obama's "spreading the wealth," what they're doing now is trying to save French by "spreading the French," instead of by elevating it. Meaning, improve the quality of French among the French people. Teach great literature. Instill love of France and French culture, so that the French have something worth talking about again... thus re-invigorating French identity. Dismantle the EU and the entire managerial, liberal, egalitarian, and Eurabian agenda and consciousness, which kill the mind, turn language into a PC tool to conceal instead of a tool to communicate truth. Bring back belief in truth, so that there will be things worth saying again, worth using language well for. Focus schools on 17th century French literature with its clarté. Make clarté, love of truth, love of France, love of the historic West, and, even better, belief in Christianity, which is all about TRUTH, the center of French culture.

Once French nation and culture and its Western identity have been saved and revived, and once the French used by the French people has been improved and purified, then start to make French attractive again to other Westerners. Forget about trying to make it attractive to Third Worlders. As you suggested from the articles at that site, such efforts do not avail. Accept the fact that France cannot have an empire again, that trying to have a Muslim empire only Islamizes France, but see that French can still be saved, because the greatness and beauty of French can still have a great appeal to fellow white Westerners. Thus encourage French as a universal second language in the West alongside English. It won't be as widespread as English, of course, but the unique beauty of French and the "high" of speaking it gives French an appeal that English can't match.

What do you think?

I have no argument with anything that restores the pride and identity of white Westerners, that's all good. What I find most appealing about native white languages is their use as a mark of separation.

I heard a suggestion that whites in Australia should maybe speak another language, in addition to English, as a mark of separation. As a way of advertising our belief that diversity is the road to hell and that homogeny is the path to peace and security and happiness, language can be a way to differentiate ourselves. What better way to advertise 24/7 that we reject the ideology of diversity? I guess we could dress differently too, for the same effect.

For Australians, as a means of restoring pride and marking ourselves out, what native white language would be appropriate? I'm guessing Gaelic. I am probably of Irish heritage, so native Irish would be my pick. Not that I have any knowledge of foreign languages.

English has been lost as an identifying mark for white people. So maybe we should abandon it among ourselves. It's gone. It's their language now. It's the language of liberals, globalists, Islamists, immigrants, corporate sell-outs, Sinophiles, dhimmis, etc.

For language to function as a mark of separation, I guess you would only use it among people who shared your beliefs in rejecting the ideology of diversity, and use English for everyone else. Not sure if it can work. But it's worth thinking about.

No doubt Prime Minister Rudd will assault our kids with a comprehensive blurring of their identities in order to welcome in the globalist era where our "habitual operating principle is cooperation". Our education has already been ear-marked as too nationalistic.

Anything that marks us as separate will probably be an asset. And it will add solidarity with the native Irish or French or whatever white language you choose.

As an example, notice how Icelanders are reluctant to share their language with foreigners:

I understand when someone is in a hurry and doesn’t have time for the trivialities of dealing with a foreigner’s attempts at the language but it can’t be that everybody is in such a hurry that no one has the time for some helpful banter.

... on Friday evening ... Philip Ruddock celebrates 35 years in federal parliament ... an opportune time to review his role in some of the most contentious areas during the past decade in Australia ...

Never fazed or flummoxed, Ruddock always responded with indisputable facts, not uncontrolled feelings. Even his demeanor infuriated the critics ...

In that time, Ruddock has had a clear narrative, long before that word became fashionable. He steered Australia towards greater appreciation for, rather than suspicion of, immigration. Even for a country steeped in a migrant history, there is a need for Australians to feel comfortable about immigration.

... As minister for immigration from 1996 until 2003, Ruddock recognised the need to take people with him, not scare them off, when advocating increased immigration...

Ruddock helped to allay the discomfort with strangers factor. He encouraged community acceptance of immigration where new arrivals would be seen as contributors, not freeloaders ... Rather than seen as stealing jobs from Australians, migrants came to be seen as the saviours for small towns looking to employ people in their abattoirs, on their farms and in their small businesses.

And when, in November 1999, boats of illegal immigrants started arriving on Australian shores just about every second day, border protection became integral to building long term confidence in an organised immigration program ...

Ruddock knew better than to be swayed by hysterical emoting. His ministerial eye remained fixed on the long-term objective of securing mainstream community acceptance for increased immigration. Ruddock’s place in Australian political history will record that immigration grew every year after 1996, rising from 67,100 in 1997 to more than 142,000 in 2006. The fair-minded will call that a genuinely compassionate outcome.

... The appointment of Ruddock—one of four Liberal MPs to cross the floor of parliament to vote in favour of prime minister Bob Hawke’s motion against discriminatory immigration policies—signalled a commitment to non-discriminatory immigration policies. Under Ruddock, more than 80 per cent of Afghans and Iraqis were granted protection visas at the primary decision-making stage and the local Islamic community is more than 40 per cent higher than it was in 1996. Under Ruddock, Australia had one of the largest per capita refugee and humanitarian resettlement programs in the world. More compassionate outcomes accepted and supported by the community because they knew that Australia, not people smugglers, determined them ...

Wow, Mr Ruddock is a super-cool visionary immigration reformer. Ahead of his time. A Cool Hand Luke who managed to convince Australia that immigration is a good thing. All without any hint of uncool emotion. Let's look at Cool Hand's work...

"As attorney-general from 2003 until 2007 ... over national security and anti-terrorism laws ... Ruddock once again steered a course to ensure community acceptance of laws needed to protect Australia ... concluding ... as the most successful terrorist prosecution this country has seen."

Let's see, Cool Hand's government presides over increased immigration for 12 years. The increased Muslim population causes the need for new terror laws. Cool Hand delivers new laws and convinces us that they're a good thing but does not question the wisdom of an increased Muslim population, that would be uncool. The increasing Muslim population also spawns the Benbrika terror cells but, thanks to Cool Hand's laws, we have the "most successful terrorist prosecution". So he's digging holes with the left Cool Hand and filling them in with the right Cool Hand. Progressive dilemma solved?

"Ruddock neutralised the issue" that he created. What's even cooler is that, as the Muslim population continues to increase with Cool Hand's increased immigration, the number of successful prosecutions will increase! Although, to a fair-minded person, as your Muslim population increases, so also does the likelihood of successful terror attacks, and successful sharia creep, successful honour killings, etc. But it's not cool to talk about that. It's only cool to talk about Cool Hand's laws, not Cool Hand's increasing Muslim population. Why? Don't ask me, talk to the Cool Hand.

Surprisingly, Cool Hand, whilst still being cool, is then booted out of office. Not his fault, I'm sure, it's probably because of his evil boss:

When the Howard government lost office last year, he did the honourable team thing. Insisting on the need for party renewal, the father of the house went to the back bench. It was a shame the party allowed him to do that.

The truth is that, while Howard did not change his spots much during the 33 years he represented Bennelong ... the demographics of Bennelong were transformed by migration ...

By 2001, almost one-fifth of Bennelong residents were Asian-born. More than 40 per cent of them speak a language other than English at home, which is more than twice the national average. The new Australians of Bennelong are not anti-Howard, but the point is they are not glued-on Liberals, unlike the WASPs they replaced.

"Any seat with more than 20 per cent of its voters born in non-English speaking countries at the 2006 census has a Labor sitting member today with one exception - Bennelong" ...

So is the Liberal Party taking stock of the situation and slowing down immigration to preserve its long-term viability? Not at all. It's doing the very opposite. The current Government has almost doubled immigration over the last ten years to about 180,000 per year.

So Cool Hand Ruddock was suicidal? How can that be? Don't ask me, talk to the Cool Hand.

I'm starting to lose confidence in Cool Hand. Not only is he filling in holes he dug himself, but he's still digging bigger holes, and he's suicidal too! I'm starting to wonder if Cool Hand really did convince us that immigration was good. Maybe we were just mesmerised by his cool? If only super-cool Janet would have pondered some more questions, like: if Australians believe immigration is so good ...

There are so many more questions I wished Janet would have answered. I'm sure you've got your own list too. Alas, Janet, Cool Hand, little Johnny, and now Chairman Rudd, will all remain enigmas who support immigration without ever answering these questions. I guess facts, of course, will never suffice for some. Although, I guess all those questions do sound a little hysterical. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm just not cool.

A Somali slaughterman who fatally stabbed a fellow worker during a rampage at a northern Victorian abattoir has been sentenced to 15 years' jail.

Justice Stephen Kaye imposed a minimum term of 12 years on Mohammed Mustaf Mohammed ...

After being acquitted on charges of murder and attempted murder, Mohammed, 26, was found guilty of the manslaughter of Peter Murphy, 47, and of intentionally causing serious injury to James Regan, 47, and Michael True, 45. Justice Kaye said the attacks at the Ovens River Abattoir in Yarrawonga on March 24 last year had exhibited an "unacceptable and savage level of violence". He said: "I have formed the strong view that you have no remorse at all for your actions."

Outside the court, Mr Murphy's widow Jan said his family had received a life sentence ...

It was unclear what provoked him but Mohammed claimed Mr Regan called him a terrorist and threatened him with a knife ...

... Filip Dewinter, a prominent member of Vlaams Belang, was present and spoke at the event. The text of his speech was sent to us by a member of Vlaams Belang, and is posted below.

Filip Dewinter’s remarks at a “Memorial to Oriana Fallaci”

... The ideology of multiculturalism has grown into a kind of new religion with the equality and equivalence of cultures as first dogma. The simple fact that we are no longer allowed to consider our own European civilisation as superior, generates an “away-with-us” mentality... Multiculturalism aggrieves Europeans with an excessive guilt complex about the West — with its history of colonialism, racism and Jew-slaughter — being the source of all evil. According to these multiculturalists we can liberate ourselves from this ‘original sin’ by throwing open the gates of Europe and the West for all kind of third-world peoples. This dangerous and disastrous “one-world” ideology puts on sale all of what we in the West stand for... Mass immigration has now become the Trojan horse of a religion and social ideology that is Europe’s historical original enemy: Islam ...

Islam is in war with Europe and the free West. Islam only executes what’s written in Quran, and follows Mohammed’s example. Mohammed was not a prophet, but a warlord who overcame and silenced his enemies with violence, weapons, and spilled blood. The Quran is a “license to kill” with unconcealed calls for waging war on dhimmis, the non-Muslims. Islam doesn’t allow for the slightest space for interpretation of the Quran, a book written fourteen hundred years ago ...

Islam is an imperialist religion which forces their rights with violence. It’s an historical evidence that Europe is the first and most important enemy of Islam. For almost fourteen centuries Europe is resisting the Islamisation of its continent. The first Islamic invasion of Europe was halted at Poitiers in 732 A.D. The second Islamic invasion was stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683.The matter is now to halt the currently ongoing third Islamic invasion... Radical Islam is nowadays fighting with other means than before: The scimitar has been replaced by the terrorists’ bomb, but apart from that little has changed. The only fundamental change is that Europe no longer dares to resist Islamic aggression and we tend to behave more and more as dhimmis ...

Islam does not belong in Europe, not yesterday, neither today, and certainly not tomorrow. Islam is diametrically opposed to our European morals and values... Islam is a political ideology, a social order and a jurisdictional system that has undergone hardly any change since Medieval times.

... we are also confronted with a demographic time bomb. It was the Algerian president Boumédienne who said: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” Indeed, Europe nowadays counts up to 50 million Muslims while only 50.000 lived here a century ago... The European population is aware of this, and is able to observe it on daily basis. Europeans have had enough of burqas, of chadors, of hijabs and kaftans, Europeans have had enough of the “ritual” slaughter of animals, of the boundless popping up of mosques, Quran schools, and minarets, of the Arab and Turkish writings on bus and tram, enough of halal food at the butchers and stores, of the never ending flow of sighs and demands made by Islam ...

Europe means Rome, Greece, the Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian roots. Europe is a continent of castles and cathedrals, not of mosques and minarets. Oriana Fallaci showed us the way in her books Rage and Pride and The Force of Reason ...

Europe is no longer Europe, it is 'Eurabia,' a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense. Servility to the invaders has poisoned democracy, with obvious consequences for the freedom of thought, and for the concept itself of liberty...

Europe overflows with the witch hunts.... hits any one going against Islam. It overflows the with New Inquisition. Trying to muzzle. Oh yes, like your Ward Churchills, your Noam Chomskys, your Louis Farrakhans and your Michael Moore's etc. TRAITORS! against which all antidotes seem to fail. Combined Neo nazi islamo fascism [Atlas note: Fallaci spit these names out with such repulsion and utter contempt...riveting] ...

Don't believe in a dialog with Islam. That's a naivete. It can only be a monologue. They do not believe in pluralism. There is no such thing as a "moderate Islam" and a Radical Islam. There is only one Islam ...

The real enemy is Islam and the most catastrophic threat is immigration not terror. It is immigration. And they do not integrate in Europe...

London — Earlier this week, a British jury convicted three British Islamists of conspiracy to murder, acquitted one, and failed to convict four more. This resulted from the investigation of the 2006 summer plot to blow up seven transatlantic airliners between Britain and the U.S. by detonating explosives packed in soft-drink bottles.

The discovery of this plot changed the way we all fly, with restrictions imposed on what we can take on board a plane. It was the biggest counter-terrorism case in British history. Yet it ended in a near-debacle. The essence of the case remains unproven, because the jury failed to agree that the aim of the conspiracy was to blow up transatlantic planes.

Prosecutors cannot understand how a jury could have failed to grasp this, given the overwhelming evidence presented to the court ...

More than 20 Islamist terror plots in Britain have now been thwarted; more than 1,000 people have been arrested under terrorism laws, and more than 200 of them convicted. These figures certainly suggest that the British security world has raised its game. But they also demonstrate the enormous scale of Britain’s home-grown problem with Islamic radicalism — a problem that the security and political establishment is actually deepening through its refusal to correctly identify the threat it is fighting.

It refuses to acknowledge that a war of Islamic conquest is being waged against the West and all “infidels”... Instead, it defines the issue as a severe terrorist threat posed by individuals who are promoting a “false” version of Islam. Indeed, British intelligence circles say that the terrorists are motivated by an “ideology” in which religion plays no part.

It is surely quite terrifying that, at this most dangerous juncture for our society, British intelligence can be, well, so lacking in intelligence. The undeniable fact is that Islamic jihadism is solidly rooted in Muslim theology and history. For sure, many Muslims reject this interpretation of their religion and live by different spiritual and peaceful lights. But it is as fatuous to say that jihadi terror is based on a false interpretation of Islam as it would have been to say that the Inquisition was based on a false interpretation of Christianity.

It is also extraordinary that such officials ignore how these admittedly confused and inconsistent terrorist youths actually define themselves as holy warriors. The “martyrdom” videos recorded by those involved in the airline plot spoke of causing violence and death in the same breath as having been chosen by Allah, of scattering the body parts of non-believers, and of their disgust at the decadence of British society. To ignore the fact that such utterances are straight out of the lexicon of imams and sheikhs throughout the Muslim world who have declared holy war against unbelievers everywhere is beyond perverse...

Worse still, Britain has caved in to the key Islamist demand that no one should suggest that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with Islam. In a speech on counter-terrorism last month, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, even declared violent extremism to be “anti-Islamic.”

The Research, Information and Communication Unit, a “hearts and minds” outfit based in the Home Office set up to counter al-Qaeda’s efforts to manipulate individuals and groups, has told civil servants not to use terms such as “Islamist extremism” or “jihadi-fundamentalist.” Instead, they should refer to “violent extremism” or “criminal murderers” or “thugs” to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism. It warns those engaged in counterterrorist work that any talk of a struggle for values or a battle of ideas is often heard as a “confrontation/clash between civilizations/cultures.” Perish the thought.

The government does nothing to stop the steadily rising number of Muslims coming to settle in Britain who, refusing to assimilate, are steadily changing its demographic, cultural, and political identities...

Even thought itself is being Islamized, with academic objectivity in the teaching of Islam and Middle East studies set aside in favour of indoctrination and propaganda. An as-yet-unpublished report by Prof. Anthony Glees says that extremist ideas are being spread by Islamic study centers linked to British universities and backed by multi-million-pound donations from Saudi Arabia and Muslim organizations. Professor Glees says, “Britain’s universities will have to generate two national cultures: one non-Muslim and largely secular, the other Muslim. We will have two identities, two sets of allegiance and two legal and political systems. This must, by the Government’s own logic, hugely increase the risk of terrorism.”

Yet Britain’s government appears paralyzed as it allows this second culture to develop apace — and with it attitudes that threaten the integrity of British society. A recent report by the Centre for Social Cohesion revealed that, among young Muslims, almost one in three says that killing in the name of religion is justified; four out of ten say they support the introduction of sharia into U.K. law; nearly a quarter do not think that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah; one in three doesn’t think or doesn’t know whether Islam is compatible with the Western notion of democracy; one third say they are in favor of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on Sharia...

When the bishop of Rochester, Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali, warned that Britain was developing Muslim no-go areas, he was denounced as Islamophobic. The establishment queued up to say they didn’t recognise the Britain he was describing. The British political and security class is doing everything it can to deny such truths — and its deadly culture of groveling appeasement and ignorance is now spreading among American security circles, too. This is simply cultural suicide.

What’s happening in Britain is a tragedy — butit’s one that the rest of the free world, fighting to defend itself against the global jihad, can ill afford to ignore.

Fewer and fewer people know the Bible, even among those with religious commitment. The latest National Church Life Survey of 500,000 people across 22 denominations, reported in yesterday's Herald, shows a whopping 59 per cent of respondents read the Bible only occasionally, rarely or never at all.

But why would you bother reading it if you didn't have some belief the words of the good Book were true? What could motivate you to wade your way through those strange, cigarette-paper pages?

To my mind, there are still plenty of reasons to bother with the Bible. But at least one is indisputable, and it reveals a gaping hole in the Australian educational experience. You need to know the Bible in order to understand the history, literature and arts of Western culture. In fact, it is an educational and cultural tragedy that the Bible has quietly disappeared from the schooling experience of many Australians.

In the US, a major project to restore biblical literacy is under way, called the Bible Literacy Project. It is a joint venture of Jewish and Christian educators intended to "encourage and facilitate the academic study of the Bible in public schools". In a country where religion and public education mix like oil and water, it is no mean feat they have got their textbook, The Bible And Its Influence, into the curriculum in 40 states, and counting.

The project had its own statistical grounding. A Gallup Poll for the project found only 37 per cent of American high school students could recognise any of Jesus' words from the Sermon on the Mount (Australia would have to be worse). And yet 98 per cent of English teachers surveyed agreed knowing the Bible delivered a distinct academic advantage in the study of English literature...

There's no need to be sidetracked by six-day creationism, or Zionism, or the subtleties of denominational differences. This is about teaching the Bible in the same way that you teach scales for learning a musical instrument, or the colour palette for painting. It's necessary to the whole task of understanding what is going on in our culture, literature, and history.

I have a vested interest in biblical literacy; after all, I'm a Christian and I think there's something to the big, unfolding story it tells. But I'm also a literary academic, and I can't bear the biblical ignorance students display. Regardless of whether you find something alive and kicking in the Scriptures, there is a strong argument it should be somewhere near the foundation of Australian education.

And maybe an equally important reason to read the bible is to experience a Western tradition of belief in god. Though I am now a dead-again atheist reductionist, I have recently returned to occasionally reading the Bible, listening to Christian music, and even praying. I like to think of it as Christian dreaming. Though I don't believe, and don't subscribe to (or understand) all of what the Bible says, I suspend disbelief to experience a relationship with a pretend god. I mainly cherry-pick for verses that encourage compassion, humility, peace, etc. I suspend disbelief and say "yes" to the shepherd's call to "follow me". Jesus said:

"Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need ..."

Like it or not, believe it or not, I feel like a better person for it.

The goal should be to pass on a Western tradition, not just reading a book. So maybe our kids should be exposed to a fuller experience of Christian fellowship, music, etc.

Will this offend serious Christians? Maybe. But I think it's better that pseudo-belief is passed down, rather than no belief. I'd go the whole hog and attend a pseudo church if I could find similar pseudo believers.

Just make sure the result is not liberal Christianity which has brought us the stupid belief in open borders and one-worldism. Fortunately, I have a strong identity as a white person and a strong belief in the value of a homogeneous race and culture, which I believe to also be Western traditions worth preserving. Hey, maybe even worth teaching in schools too.

... At our going out, we who did our best to reform the law must hand it on to you who are coming in. Never be content with injustice. Question old rules in new contexts of rapidly changing times.

The changing times include the advances in international law - trade law, economic law and human rights law. Never accept that these are developments irrelevant to our Australian domestic law. The big challenge and opportunity of this generation of lawyers lies in its demand that lawyers should think globally.

We need to change mental gears. Others on this campus are thinking globally all their lives. A law school cannot be a little enclave of parochialism. Nor can the legal profession or the judiciary. At your coming in, you must change the focus of the law. This is your special challenge and chance.

...The position of women has also improved, as have many of the laws affecting them. But there is still far to go. The slights to Asian-Australians have diminished. But there is still far to go.

The position of gays has got better in my lifetime. But the oppression and ignorance are not yet over. Inequality and discrimination have not yet stopped. Wrongs and injustices still occur in the law to this day, including even for me, an office-holder under the nation's Constitution. So it is work in progress; no room for complacency.